 |
Shalom and welcome to ClassicalHebrew.com forum!
David Emanuel, who manages the forum, gave up a successful career in computing and telecommunications to pursue his interest in Hebrew Bible at the Hebrew University. Whilst at the university; he spent two valuable years at the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. David has now completed his PhD at the Hebrew University’s Bible department. His dissertation falls within the fields of Inner-biblical Interpretation and Biblical Hebrew Poetry. It specifically addresses the psalmist’s use of the Exodus motif. In 2008 after eleven years of study, David returned to the United Kingdom. He currently works part time for Tyndale House (Cambridge University) on a Bible mapping project, amalgamating both his biblical and computing background. His present research interests are: Inner-biblical Interpretation, Hebrew Poetry, and Biblical Interpretation at Qumran.
Our forum is intended for you to post questions and thoughts concerning Biblical Hebrew. Your comments also help us to better understand what interests you best, enabling us to offer new services and make the online learning experience that much more enjoyable and productive.
If you have any questions regarding our courses, please contact our customer care
|
| Emanuel David - Forum's Manager |
| |
Message |
Date |
 |
Leon
This is not a simple issue. The best thing I can do is direct you to a website that has a nice explanation.
http://www.yashanet.com/library/hebrew-days-and-months.html
........de.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
01/03/10 10:11:23 |
 |
Leon
These two words overlap in their meaning and may be used by different translators to translate the same word in Hebrew. In Gen 6:8 for example, the New King James uses "grace" but the NIV uses "favor". Underlying these translations is the same Hebrew Word Xen. Nothing much can be made of the translation choices.
Regards
.........de.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
09/03/10 09:36:56 |
 |
Is there any evidence whatsoever that this passage was mistranslatd from hebrew into english specifically the name Malchiah the son of Hammelech?
A mormon told me that Malchiah the son of Hammelech was actually their 'Mulek' because it comes from MalkiYahu ben-hamMelek which apparently translates to MalkiYahu son of the king by John Bright in his anchor bible commentary on Jeremiah
please let me know if you can
thanks
Jason
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
07/02/10 17:08:54 |
| |
Jason
I am not sure I fully understand the question. There are a couple of different translations for this verse depending on the version. Drop me an email and I can send you some alternatives.
........de.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
19/02/10 11:31:35 |
| |
I would like to have suggestions in what would be an accurate and LITERAL English translation and also an accurate but DYNAMIC/MEANING-FOR-MEANING English translation translation of Daniel 9.2 yet CONVEYING THE SAME understanding as each other.
Many thanks
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
06/02/10 21:24:24 |
| |
Edward
I am not quite sure what you are after here, but I can offer you two translations that present the opposite ends of the spectrum. The first is from Young’s Literal Translation, which as you can imagine offers a very literal reading of the verse. The second is from the New Living Translation, which is a much looser and general interpretation. I hope it helps.
Daniel 9:2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, have understood by books the number of the years, (in that a word of Jehovah hath been unto Jeremiah the prophet,) concerning the fulfilling of the wastes of Jerusalem -- seventy years;
Daniel 9:2 During the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, learned from reading the word of the LORD, as revealed to Jeremiah the prophet, that Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years.
......de.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
08/02/10 11:42:47 |
| |
Amos
The name Amos in all likelihood originates from the root Ayin-Mem-Samech which means something like “load” or “bearing a load”. There are a few other places in the Bible where this root, with the meaning mentioned above, occurs. Gen 44:14 speaks of Joseph’s brothers loading up their donkeys.
Then they rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass, and returned to the city.
Neh 13:15 also recalls the word:
In those days I saw in Judah some who were treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sacks of grain and loading them on donkeys, as well as wine, grapes, figs, and all kinds of loads, and they brought them into Jerusalem on the sabbath day. So I admonished them on the day they sold food.
See also Zech 12:13
regards
.......de.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
05/02/10 13:53:59 |
| |
Hello there !
I recently made a tattoo.Is a verset from bible.
I was curios if it was made right.
If someone can tell me an opinion , I will appreciate.
Thank you!
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
07/01/10 22:42:15 |
| |
Hi
I am assuming here that the intended passage was from 1Cor 16:13. If that is the case then the first thing I must say is that the New Testament was originally a Greek text and so anything written in Hebrew is only a translation (sorry if you already knew that). Because it is a translation, there are different versions of Hebrew for the same verse. I have listed the three most popular below. The first is from an old Ginzburg translation, the second is the Bible Society’s translation and the third is the Delitzsch.
….David Emanuel
שִׁקְדוּ עִמְדוּ בְדֶרֶךְ אֱמוּנָה הִתְאשְׁשׁוּ וַעֲשׂוּ חָיִל׃
שקדו עמדו באמונה חזקו ואמצו
שקדו עמדו באמונה התאוששו והתחזקו
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
08/01/10 13:56:21 |
| |
I would like to know what the true meaning of the world of Emanuel means. I know that all Hebrew names have a specific meaning.
I was told that emanuel means from the hand of El. I was wondering if this is true?
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
26/12/09 21:57:29 |
| |
Olga
The word Emanuel consists of three parts. The preposition עם meaning “with”, together with the pronominal suffix נו- “us”. Together this reads, “with us” as seen in
Jud 11:8, “The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, "Honestly, we have now turned back to you. If you come *with us* and fight the Ammonites, you shall be our commander over all the inhabitants of Gilead." ”
and 1Sam 5:7, “When the men of Ashdod saw how matters stood, they said, "The Ark of the God of Israel must not remain *with us*, for His hand has dealt harshly with us and with our god Dagon." ”.
The word אל is a name used for God/god in various contexts, such as
Deut 3:24, “'O Lord God, Thou hast begun to show Thy servant Thy greatness and Thy strong hand; for what *god* is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as Thine? ”
Neh 9:31, “Still, in Your great compassion You did not make an end of them or abandon them, for You are a gracious and compassionate *God*.”
Together the phrase עמנו אל means, “God with us”, though it does filter through a number of translations simply as “Immanuel”. (see Is 7:14, 8:8, and 8:10)
Regards
......de.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
28/12/09 13:19:07 |
| |
Leon
The first part of the name is derived from the tetragrammaton and is found in other names such as Yehoyaqim (the Lord Exalts), and Yehonatan (the Lord gives/gave).
The second part of the name derives from the root יש"ע , meaning “to deliver”; it is also found in some names, Elishua/Elisha, "God is deliverance."
Together in the name Joshua, the best interpretation would be along the lines of “the Lord delivers”
Regards
.......de.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
28/12/09 13:48:10 |
| |
I am wondering how the word "Ehyeh" Exodus 3:14 can be translated either "I will be" or "I am".
In the Hebrew it looks like it should read only "I will be", I don't see how some translations have it as "I am".
Is this something to do with "aspect" in the OT Hebrew thinking?
This has been bugging me for a long time now.
Thank you.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
16/12/09 22:25:09 |
| |
The form of the verb אהיה in Modern Hebrew would most certainly be limited to the future tense, rendering “I will be”, but the situation is not quite so simple in Biblical Hebrew. You are right in assuming this has something to do with aspect. In Biblical Hebrew it is not really possible to ascertain the tense of verb via its morphology, certainly not in the case of the Yiqtol/imperfect and Qatal/perfect. Consequently, even though the form looks like the future form in Modern Hebrew, we cannot automatically render it thus in Biblical Hebrew. There are numerous places in the Bible where we see the imperfect rendered in the present tense (technically this falls within the realms of an habitual present or general truth); such as:
Gen 6:21, “…now take for yourself from all the food which is eaten (“יֵֽאָכֵ֔ל” nifal, imperfect, 3ms”.
Ex 23:8, “…for a bribe blinds (“יְעַוֵּ֣ר” imperfect, piel, 3ms) the clear-sighted and subverts (“יסַלֵּ֖ף” imperfect, piel, 3ms) the cause of those who are in the right.
(See also Gen 37:15, “what are you looking for”; Mal 1:6, “A son honors his father…”)
A fuller discussion of the aspect system in Biblical Hebrew would challenge the confines of this present forum space. In short, however, it is worth noting that Semitic languages were more concerned with the length or duration of actions than they were with when the action took place.
Regards
David Emanuel
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
17/12/09 11:59:03 |
| |
The explaination of Exodus 3:14,I AM THAT I AM: he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. What does I AM THAT I AM mean in Hebrew language ? in that period they were not using vowels just the consone.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
17/11/09 01:57:00 |
| |
Hello Leon,
thank you for your question!
"I am that I am", or "I am who I am" looks like this spelled with Hebrew letters: אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה
Transliteration: "Ehyeh asher ehyeh"
It is true that the scribes who originally wrote this down did not use vowels in their spelling. These forms of the verb "to be" are in the yiqtol form, also called imperfect and it is in the first person - "I". The much discussed divine name YHWH is taken from the same root, but in third person - i.e. "he" instead of "I".
There has been many questions about the divine name YHWH. You can find more on the divine name further down.
Kinds regards
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
25/11/09 23:37:58 |
| |
I have carefully gone through the list of countries on the free call list and findout that Nigeria is not listed, please can you include that for our benefits? thank you.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
12/11/09 09:44:16 |
| |
In order to find out the costs of the online courses for the different parts of the world, please contact our customer services department.
service@eteachergroup.com
Regards
.........de.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
11/01/10 12:00:35 |
| |
I have seen this scripture translated is two very different ways.
Many translate this as "Your throne oh God is to time indefinite ..."
Others "God is your throne to time indefinite..."
I have been told that there is an implied verb here and thus the translater has to make a decision where to put the verb. I would be interested in your answer.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
29/09/09 18:10:21 |
| |
Hello Winston,
There is an implied verb in this phrase. We call this kind of sentence "nominal sentence" because it has no verb, no form of "to be". Hebrew never uses a verb form of "to be" in the present time. In Hebrew you say "My house red", which means "My house is red". There are rules how to interpret these sentences and how to decide what is the subject and where to put the verb. Sometimes though, it is up to the reader to decide how to translate the sentence.
In the verse you are referring to, there exists, grammatically speaking, an ambiguity. In theory, both translations are possible. But,not logically. The first translation is the correct one: "Your throne, O God, is/will be/ forever and ever."
There is simply no example of God being seen as a throne elsewhere in the Bible. So that translation is too far-fetched. God is never described as a throne. On the other hand there are many descriptions of God SITTING on his throne (forever and ever).
Shalom
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
30/09/09 23:26:02 |
| |
In the context of this scripture, Ps 45:1 says "My heart is stirred by a noble theme: I address my poem to the king..." Jerusalem Bible.
This whole psalm is in reference to a specific king and in verse 7 it speaks about him
"virtue you love as much as you hate wickedness
This is why God, your God , has anointed you with the oil of gladness, above all your rivals" Jerusalem Bible.
Does this mean that the specific king is indeed God or that this king has a has a God he worships.
One translation looks illogical but the other seems to be a contradiction to the context.
Is there any way that the scripture actually means that the validation of his kingship or support for his throne is from God?
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
01/10/09 05:46:39 |
| |
I did not get a response to my last question. Is this Psalm speaking about God or some human king?
Would this not have a bearing on how Ps 45:6 would be translated?
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
11/10/09 02:28:01 |
| |
Hello Winston,
I must have missed this question and I am sorry you had to wait for my response.
It is difficult to say what the psalmist intended when he wrote this psalm. Who is the king? A human or God himself? Or maybe both? There are several different interpretations connected to this beautiful psalm of love and kingship. The obvious setting of the psalm is a royal wedding of one of Israel’s kings. There is a righteous king and a beautiful bride. Although the kings were not regarded as gods in ancient Israel (as in many of their neighboring countries, e.g Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria) there was a special connection between God and the anointed king. Let me explain this connection a little bit closer.
The kingship of God is a central theological theme in the Hebrew Bible ( Ex. 15:18, Ez. 20:33, Is. 24:23, Ps. 93:1). In 1 Sam. 8 we learn that Israel was different from other nations around them since they didn’t have a king. When the people demanded a king, Samuel the judge opposed them and claimed that God himself is the king of Israel (God is also seen as the king of the entire earth and all its nations, not only Israel, Ps 47:8-9, Jer. 10:7). But when the Israelites continued to demand a king, with the argument that they wanted to be like their neighbors, God gave them what they wanted. The kingship was regarded as an institution of God’s rule. It was the Lord himself who appointed Saul and later David, with whom God established a covenant saying that his descendants would rule Israel forever. The king is described as someone who executes God’s sovereignty and mediates God’s salvation to the world (Ps. 2, 21, 110). Moreover, in psalm 2, the king is even described as the SON of God. So God and the king are somehow seen as one unit. They work together to execute God’s plans in Israel. Well, at least that is the ideal situation. The many errors of the corrupt kings described in 1- 2 Kings, show us that often times the kings refused to do God’s will. Instead they started to work on their own, putting their own thoughts and ideas before the will of God.
So, who is the king in Psalm 45? Maybe this psalm reflects the strong connection between the earthly king (of Israel) and God himself. As I already said, it is difficult to come to any conclusions on what the psalmist intended. Many different interpretations have been suggested. Some think that it is the earthly king and his earthly bride that is described on their wedding day. Some people, both Jews and Christians, claim that the king and the bride are metaphors for God and His people (for a Christian interpretation, compare with Hebrews 1:8 in the New Testament.) Maybe the psalmist intended the content to be ambiguous. That he is indeed describing a royal wedding in Israel, but at the same time tries to say something about the relationship between God and His people.
Have a good week!
Shalom,
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
13/10/09 14:35:32 |
| |
I do feel that there is a problem with your conclusion, as I have been looking at a number of translations that do not agree with you. Please not this quite from the book Truth in translation
“ Within the Jewish Tradition, Psalm 45 has never been taken to call the king “God.” The modern translation published by the Jewish Bible Society reads, “Your divine throne is everlasting.” The Greek translation of the psalm made before the beginning of Christianity, which reads exactly as the author of Hebrews has quoted it, certainly followed this traditional Jewish understanding of the verse, and its translators thought that by using ho theos they were saying “God is your throne”, not “Your throne, O God.”
It is always possible that the author of Hebrews understood it differently. There are other examples in Hebrews where Old Testament verses are reinterpreted. But these reinterpretations are always made apparent to the reader by slight changes in how the verses are quoted, as in Hebrews 2:6-8. In Hebrews 1:8 the author would have to make some change in phrasing to make the reinterpretation explicit. But no change is made. So even if the author understood ho theos here as direct address, he or she has not left us any explicit indication of that.
So we must conclude that the more probable translation is “God is your throne …,” the translation found in NW and the footnotes of the NRSV and TEV. Three giants of modern New Testament Scholarship – Westcott, Moffatt, and Goodspeed – came to the same conclusion independently. The fact is, if this verse were quoted in the New Testament to anyone else, the translators would not have hesitated to translate it as “God is your throne …,” It seems likely that it is only most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred. I am not criticizing their belief: I am merely pointing out that such a belief can lead to bias in the choices people make as translators. The issue for the translator is not whether or not Jesus is God, it is whether or not Jesus is called God in this passage. Truth in Translation by Jason Beduhn
Do you have such a bias in your response to me? I see this scripture as a reason to view the throne of Christ as based upon God's Power and Authority. In this sense his throne is God.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
16/11/09 07:41:53 |
| |
Hello Winston,
thank you for writing again!
In Classical Greek and Koine Greek the vocative form of "God" is "ho theos" or "theos". (Vocative is the form used when addressing a person. In the sentence "You, o friend, will be my guest of honor" the phrase "o friend" is vocative.) In Classical Greek there is a special particle used in combination with the word in vocative. However, the vocative particle is NOT used with God “ho theos” in Classical Greek and Koine. They simply say "theos" or "ho theos" (ho is the definite article ) for “O God” .
Therefore it is not correct to say that the use of "ho theos" in the Septuagint cannot be translated as "O God".In fact, I would say that the use of "ho theos" in this verse is an explicit indication to interpret this form as the direct address.
"Your throne, O God, will be/last forever and ever" is the most plausible translation of this verse.
Throughout history there has been many different interpretations of the identity of the king in this psalm. I leave it to each reader of the Bible to decide who they think the psalmist refers to: an earthly king? God? or both? This is a question of belief.
Shalom
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
17/11/09 15:35:08 |
| |
I am looking for the Hebrew words for "Comfort," "Encouragement," "Longsuffering,", "Patience," and "Help" and any OT text that might illutrate the words. The Greek words that I am comparing these to are: parakaleo, noutheteo, paramutheonmai, antechomai,and makrothumeo. I thank you for your help
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
28/09/09 02:35:32 |
| |
Shalom Stephanye,
The Hebrew root נחמ in different patterns represents the English “comfort”, “console”, “to be comforted” and “to comfort”.
The verb “to comfort” can be found in Gen. 24:67, 2 Sam 12:24, Isa 40:1, Lam 1:2.
The root can also be used in the sense of “be sorry”, “repent”, “change one’s mind”. In many cases the Lord’s “changing” of his mind is a gracious response to human factors. In Jeremiah we often read the repentance on the part of the people (Jer. 8:6) will make it possible for God to repent, change his mind, Jer. 18:8, 20:16
The nouns (from the same root) and are plural in form and have the meaning “consolation, comfort”: Job 15:11, Ps. 94:19, Isa 66:11
is also a noun of the same root, with the meaning “comfort” or “consolation”, Job 6:10, Ps. 119:50
Encouragement can be expressed with the root חזק“chazaq”, which when put in different patterns mean - “to be strong”, “strengthen”, “have courage”, “to become strengthened”.
When is used in combination with אמצ <‘amats> it is used to encourage someone. It seems to be some kind of installation/comission formula: “Be resolute and of good courage” - . Both and <’amats> in this context convey the sense of being courageous, resolute or standing firm. It is used twice by Moses just before his own death, Deut. 31:6,7. When God himself commissioned Joshua the same formula appears: Deut. 31:23, Josh 1:6. They are encouraged to be strong and courageous not because they possess some special abilities but because their powerful and eternal God would be with them and never forsake them.
The same formula is also found in 1 Chron. 22:13, 2 Chron 32:7
When it comes to long-suffering there is a Hebrew root כאב related to both physical and mental pain. (No precise distinction is drawn between them.) The noun is found in Job 2:13, Isa. 17:11, Isa. 65:14, Jer. 15:18
The Hebrew root עזר <‘azar> means “to help”, “support”. The noun <’ezra> is used mainly in Psalms. See for instance Ps. 22:19, 38:22, 40:13
There is also another noun of the same root <’ezer>. On 6 occasions this noun is linked with the epithet “shield”. (Deut. 33:29, Ps. 33:20, 115:9-11. When used along with “shield” the combined expression has the connotation of divine protection afforded to Israel, just as the warrior in battle is protected by a shield.
Best wishes,
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
29/09/09 14:44:23 |
| |
Hello again Lizzy,
There is a Hebrew root אמץ (’amets) corresponding to being brave, bold, of good courage, stouthearted. The root is used for instance in Deut. 31:7 and Joshua 1:9.
Kind regards
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
18/09/09 23:26:50 |
| |
Hi Lizzy,
there are several words in Hebrew that can be translated with the English word ”strength”. I will discuss one of them here.
The Hebrew word עֹז [ʿoz], spelled with the Hebrew letters 'ayin and zayin, means strength or power. It comes from the root is (ʿzz). This root also appears in other Semitic languages, such as Ugarit, Akkadian and Ethiopic. The noun עֹז [ʿoz] is most frequently used in connection with God, ex. Ps. 62:12, Job 12:16.
Have a good weekend!
Shabbat shalom,
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
11/09/09 12:44:02 |
| |
Hello again :)
I just realised that the letters are so tiny that you might not be able to distinguish the Hebrew letters...Therefore I now attach a wordfile with the Hebrew spelling with larger letters.
Best greetings,
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
11/09/09 12:50:16 |
| |
WHY IS IT THAT REAL NAMES OF GOD ALMIGHTY ARE REMOVED FROM THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY? CAN I HAVE THE REAL ONE?
OGUGU CHINEDUM C.
SUITE #3, N.A.S.S., OGUI ROAD,
P.O. BOX 2562, ENUGU 400001,
ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA.
+234-803 558 3240. occsipress@yahoo.co.uk
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
05/09/09 19:57:51 |
| |
Hello Ogugu,
thank you for your question. We have had many discussions on our forum about the differnt names of God in the Hebrew Bible. I am not sure what you mean when you say that the names of God have been removed from the bible but I think you are referring to the personal name of God, YHWH that is often translated to "Lord" in English.
The personal name of the God of Israel is spelled yod, heh, waw, heh in Hebrew (see Ex. 3:14). This name is also called the “tetragrammaton”, a greek name meaning "four letter (word)". The Hebrew root of YHWH is HYH - "to be".
Nobody today knows exactly how to pronounce this name. In Hebrew tradition, the name is pronounced adonai, meaning “my Lord”, to not acidentally break the third commandment:
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
So, basically, some Bible editions choose not to try to guess how the name was spelled simply because it will only be guessing. Instead they use "Lord". Another reason for not using YHWH with some kind of vowel combination in between, is to respect religious people who would be offended by such usage.
All the best!
Shalom,
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
07/09/09 15:01:04 |
| |
I need to complete my project and submit. I need the words "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews" translated into Hebrew. Please Please can you send me the translation preferably can you type it into a word document and post it. I will be very grateful to you for the same. Thanks and God Bless.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
28/06/09 14:26:44 |
 |
Hello brother, I am the new of the forum and would like help from you, so you can preach the word of God to others, I am Brazilian and I live in Brazil, my msn: fabio-ship@hotmail.com and my e-mail : fabio.navio @ gmail.com
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
24/06/09 01:47:40 |
| |
Hello I was wondering how to write the word brother in hebrew and how the writing in ancient greek differed. Also please forgive my lack of knowledge....but what is the oldest language/writings known to have interpreted or been recorded regarding early Bible beginnings.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
07/06/09 20:26:06 |
| |
Dear Matthew,
Thank you for your questions. In Hebrew brother is called 'ach (see attached file for spelling in Hebrew).
The Greek word for brother is adelphos (see attached file for spelling in Greek).
Nobody knows exactly how old the different texts of Hebrew Bible are. Before they were written down many of them were transmitted orally, and it is hard to estimate the beginnings of such traditions. Nevertheless, we know the approximate age of the oldest manuscripts found so far. They were found in 1947 in the Judean desert at Qumran, and go by the well-known name The Dead Sea Scrolls. However, they do not contain the Hebrew Bible in its entirety, but only fragments from all the different books of the Hebrew Bible except the book of Esther which was not found at all at Qumran. The most famous of the Dead Sea Scrolls contains the entire book of Isaiah. The scrolls are commonly dated from about 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE.
The oldest manuscript which has preserved the entire Hebrew Bible is the Leningrad Codex. It was written by the scribe Shmuel ben Ya׳’ג‚¬ג„¢akov in Egypt in 1008.
However, the most authoritative manuscript written during the Masoretic period (i.e. 7th -11th century) is the Aleppo Codex also called Keter Aram Zova. It was written in Tiberias in the early 10th century. It has its name after the Jewish community Aleppo in Syria where it was preserved until it was severly damaged in the 1947 anti-Jewish riots. Ten years later it was moved to Jerusalem.
Shalom and good luck with your Hebrew studies!
sincerely, Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
10/06/09 22:21:12 |
| |
I read in Weingreen that where a personal suffix is added to a group of words in construct state that the suffix applies to group as a whole
So that Elohey_yeshuati would mean 'my God of salvation, rather than 'God of my salvation'
However what if the writer had intendionally wanted to emphasis the latter, how would it be written?
thanks
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
19/05/09 13:13:05 |
| |
Hi Alan,
thank you for your question!
I haven't studied Weingreen's grammar, but I believe that when Weingreen says that the pronomial suffix applies to the enitre group, he is referring to the fact that the suffix makes the entire group (chain) DEFINITE (not only the second noun to which it is immediately attached) and not that the suffix itself should be applied to both nouns.
To explain this is little bit further we must first look at the different ways in which a noun can become definite. Firstly, you can add the definite article ha-. Secondly, you can add a pronominal suffix.
Ex: melech - indefinite noun meaning a king, but with a pronominal suffix - malki - my king or malkenu- our king, are both regarded as definite. Thirdly, the first noun (the construct noun) of a construct chain is regarded as definite if the second noun (the absolute noun) is definite, i.e. has the definite article or a suffix.
If the second noun in a construct chain is definite the first noun automatically is definite aswell, since the chain is regarded as one unit.
Thereby, a phrase like Elohey Yeshuati, is translated THE God of my Salvation
and not *A God of my salvation. The suffix on the second word makes the entire chain definite.
Now, having said that, the pronominal suffix itself ONLY applies to the word it is attached to. Therefore it is not appropriate to translate the chain MY GOD of Salvation.
We can take a look at another example, Gen. 49:7:
Yemey sheney chayey Avotay.
Translation:
The days of the years of the life of my fathers.
The entire chain is definite, due to the suffix added to the last noun. But the suffix itself "my" only applies to the last word.
The translation *My days of my years of my life of my fathers
makes no sense and is not a good translation.
Look at the paragraph in Weingreen again and see if maybe he is saying that the suffix applies to entire group by making it definite.
Greetings from Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
19/05/09 16:21:00 |
| |
Hello James,
Matt. 7:13 in Modern Hebrew is:
הכנסו דרך הפתח הצר כ' רחב הפתח ומרוחת הדרך המול'כה לאבדון ורב'ם ההולכ'ם בה.
Transliteration:
Hikkansu derech hapetach hatsar, ki rachav hapetach hameruvachat haderech hamolichah la'avadon werabbim haholechim bah.
English:
Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
Shalom
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
14/05/09 22:37:10 |
| |
Can someone explain which rules apply to the pronunciation of wayehi in for example Genesis 1:5? I would expect way-hi with a silent swa, but why is it vocal here?
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
11/04/09 01:35:46 |
| |
Shalom Martin,
the question of the shewa symbol is not always as easy as it seems. In fact it has been much discussed throughout the history of the study of the Hebrew language. Basically one can say that the shewa sign indicates absence of a vowel (shewa quiescens). Nevertheless, to make pronunciation easier, the shewa sign is vocalic (called mobile, and then pronounced as the hurried vowel "a" in the English word "about") under certain circumstances. There are some basic rules which can help us to decide whether a shewa is mobile (vocalic) or quiescens (silent) but there are also some exceptions from these rules.
The five basic rules for when a shewa appears as mobile (vocalic) are:
1. At the beginning of a word
2. The second of two consecutive shewas
3 After a long vowel
4. Under a dageshed (geminated) consonant
5. Under the first of two identical consonants
Now, regarding the verb wayhī. Following the above mentioned rules one would say that the correct pronunciation of the shewa sign in this case would be a silent shewa, namely wayhī. That is also how it is transliterated in academic papers. Simply because it is preceded by a short vowel (patach).
I am not sure why you would say that it is vocalic in Gen. 1:5. Could you explain that a little bit further? You may be referring to the recording that is included in lesson 1 in which the word is pronounced with a short vocalic sound, like this: wayͤhī. The tradition that the man belongs to chooses to pronounce the shewa as a vocalic sound here. This proves that it is not easy to decide always whether the shewa is silent or mobile. As often when we are dealing with pronunciation, there exists a certain degree of ambiguity.
Good luck with your studies!
Kind regards from Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
22/04/09 20:33:34 |
| |
I asked a sephardi friend. I have a tikkun(chumash for leining) with a vocal shwa marked as bold, and it shows wayehi gen 1:5, with a vocal shwa. Because of the meteg before the shwa, it makes the shwa vocal. Even though it's a short vowel a patach, before it. My friend pronounces it silent though.. But he says some make it vocal because of the meteg.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
04/11/09 01:57:46 |
| |
This image depicts a word/name with 4 characters and a strange symbol beneath. Did its creator use the "Matres lectionis" system, or is it standard Modern Hebrew? I am especially having trouble with the first character (the one on the far right of the image). All of my limited knowledge of this is through AncientScripts.com/hebrew, and through a Jewish friend. HELP! And what is that symbol at the bottom? Is it a character or something else? Can anyone read this?
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
06/02/09 04:17:44 |
| |
Hi Cara,
the word that you are curious about is the personal name of the God of Israel : YHWH. It contains the four Hebrew letters (from right to left) jod, heh, waw, heh. Nobody today is sure how to pronounce this name. The little character underneath the waw is the vowel qamatz - that is a long "a"- vowel.
For more info about the personal name of the God of Israel - YHWH - look at the message that I have written further down with the title "translation question and the name of God"!
If you go through the questions here on the forum you will find a lot of discussions on this interesting and fascinating topic!
Shalom /Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
06/02/09 21:29:37 |
| |
Dear readers of the forum,
there has been quite an animated debate on the forum about the relation between Hebrew and Arabic. I would like to sort things out a little bit and also kindly ask any person who would like to make an attribution to the discussion to leave any political or offensive opinions out of the forum. This forum is meant for linguistical and theological questions about Biblical Hebrew and the Bible and its world, nothing else. Languages are interesting and give us important facts and hints about human history. That is part of what makes linguistic studies so beautiful. They should not be used as weapons in political debates. Such misuse of languages often comes from ignorance and misinterpretations and it can have devastating consequences, as we have seen proof of in our modern history.
However, the question about the relation between Hebrew and Arabic is interesting and important.
Both Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages, more precisely West-Semitic. Other languages in that group are for instance Aramaic, Ethiopian and Phoenician. Just as Indo-European languages (which is the group of languages that for example English, German, French and Spanish belong to) are divided into different sub-groups (Germanic, Italic, Balto-Slavic), so does Biblical Hebrew belong to North-Western Semitic languages (together with Aramaic and Phoenician) whereas Arabic belongs to the South-Western Semitic languages (together with Ethiopian).
There are many grammatical, syntactial and lexical similarities between Biblical Hebrew and Arabic. They share important grammatical features and many common words. This points to the fact that they have a common origin- that is what we call Proto-West Semitic. The question on which of the languages, Arabic or Hebrew, is the oldest one, is not a correctly asked question, but builds on a misunderstanding of how the languages developed. Both Hebrew and Arabic origin from the same source - Proto-West Semitic. Then they developed paralally in different directions.
Now, Modern Hebrew, the Hebrew spoken in Israel today, has elements from both Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. Arabic has also had an influence on Modern Hebrew since many Jews living in Israel today come from Arabic-speaking countries and they themselves or their parents had Arabic as their mother-tongue. Often times we hear that Modern Hebrew is an artificial language, constructed by Ben-Yehuda and his companions in the 19th and 20th centuries. Although Ben-Yehuda's contribution to Modern Hebrew was essential - especially when it came to the construction of new words and of course the fact that Modern Hebrew is used today as THE language of the modern state of Israel, it is not true that Modern Hebrew was "created" by Ben-Yehuda. Hebrew has been used throughout history (Biblical times through Medieval times) as a vivid communication language by Jews in the Diaspora having different languages as their mother-tongues. Having said that, I must add that Modern Hebrew is not the same language as Biblical Hebrew, it is a mixture between Biblical Hebrew, Mishanic Hebrew and other elements. So, Modern Hebrew is neither the same as Biblical Hebrew, nor is it a totally new and artificial language having nothing to do with Biblical Hebrew!
Nobody today knows how to speak Biblical Hebrew, we are not even sure how they pronounced some words and letters during Biblical times (although there are qualified guesses). That is why studying cognate languages (related languages, like Arabic or Akkadian) is so vital to Biblical Hebrew studies – it gives us further insights into how Biblical Hebrew worked as a language, how different letters and words were pronounced and how we should interpret certain words and phrases.
Hope this contribution puts some important facts on the table and that it encourages us to study and dig further into the history of Hebrew and other Semitic languages.
Kind regards and shalom /Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
02/02/09 13:13:48 |
| |
Hello Al,
no, we don't teach Arabic. The classicalhebrew.com programs only teach Classical Hebrew.
Arabic is an interesting Semitic language aswell though. I have studied Standard Arabic and I can recommend it to anyone! :)
Shalom,
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
27/10/09 16:13:40 |
| |
Hello Ehi,
are you asking about the Hebrew words for covenant and land?
Covenant is בְּרִיתִ (berit) in Hebrew
and land/earth isאֶרֶץ (eretz) .
Kind regards from Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
12/01/09 21:17:19 |
| |
Hello,
The word הביטו is found in Zechariah 12:10 and is roughly translated "They will look." The verb looks like a Hiphil verb to me, but I am unable to determine the root letters.
Can anyone help?
Thanks,
Roland.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
09/12/08 22:59:03 |
| |
Hello Roland,
וְהִבִּיטוּ from Zechariah 12:10 is a hiphil weqatal form (also referred to as the waw consecutive qatal)3 person plural from the root נבט: nun, beth, tet.
The verb וְהִבִּיטוּ is a weak verb (irregular) because it begins with a nun (called primae nun-verbs in grammars, or peh-nun), and that is why it is a little bit difficult to identify the root.
When the first root radical is a nun it is assimilated with the second radical if there is a prefix of some kind. In this case there is a heh prefix for the hiphil, just as you noted.
However, the nun is represented by a dagesh in the second root radical, in this case a beth. So, we can know there is a nun hiding in the second root radical because of the dagesh!
Good luck with your studies!
Best regards
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
15/12/08 12:19:42 |
| |
Hello Rudolf Chelsea,
Grace in Hebrew is חֵן (chen) or חֶסֶד (chesed).
The phrase "saved by grace" would be נוֹשַׁע בַּחֶסֶד
(nosa' bachesed). The Hebrew word "chesed" is connected to loyalty, steadfast love and faithfulness. It is a term used to describe human relationships ( ex. 1Sam. 20:8) and the relationship between God and humanity (ex. Ps. 31:7). It is often found in Psalms to describe who God is- God's character is full of chesed, grace.
Take care, shalom
Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
03/11/08 23:13:23 |
| |
Hello. As a complete novice at this, I was wondering if you would be able to give a correct difinition of the name Israel. In the Strongs, the root word is Sarah, meaning to prevail as a prince. How does this tie up with God calling Jacob Israel (masculine,feminine. Many thanks
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
07/10/08 23:39:37 |
| |
Hi Allyson, shalom,
thank you for your important and interesting question!
The etymology (history) of the Hebrew name Israel has been much discussed. The most widely accepted theory of its meaning is that it is a theophoric name (containing the name of a deity) consisting of
'el - God
and the root
sarah (sin, resh, heh)- to contend, struggle.
This specific root only appears 3 time in the Hebrew bible and all of them occur in the context of the story in Gen 32.
The name Israel would then mean "He who struggles with God".
The biblical story in Genesis 32 is, in my opinion, one of the most exciting and at the same time most mystical and difficult texts in the Hebrew Bible. The story of Jacob struggling with a man that apperently is God himself (although this has been discussed, see further down for another explanation) and receives his blessing is definitely hard to interpret and understand and requires a lot of thought. Challenging - and exciting! The depth of the Bible is incredible and I am sure there is much to be learned from this story.
After the struggle with God, Jacob is given a new name (which is quite common in the biblical tradition when a certain person receives a new task in life, or when his or her life changes direction for some reason), namely Israel, "because you have struggled (sarita from sarah)with God and men and prevailed."
Jacob - meaning the trickster- becomes the man who struggled with God himself!
And this name became the name of the entire people of God- the nation of Israel, who has Jacob, i.e. Israel, as their ancestor.
The fact that Jacob was wrestling with God himself has ben difficult to accept throughout history. Especially since God had problems winning the game...There is another explanation saying that Jacob fought with an angel. This suggestion is supported by Hos. 12:4.
There are indeed many challenging and mystical things happening in this passage. Why did God (or the angel) have to break his hip and why won't he say his name to Jacob?
One thing is certain though - this happening is an important one in the history of the nation of Israel - why else would Jacob receive a new name as an outcome of it, and why else would the prophet Hosea write about it?
Best wishes from Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
10/10/08 15:17:21 |
| |
Hello I am curious if anybody knows if the word "sar" or the plural "sarim" is used to describe Michael the angel in Daniel 10:13. I ask this because in Daniel, Michael the angel is directly associated with resurrecting the dead, bringing moral regeneration and judging by the book of life in 12:1-3. He is called the "great prince" in 12:1 but merely "one of" the great princes in 10:13. In the link below regarding Daniel 10:13 it just says "sar" which appears singular instead of "sarim" but I am not sure that is correct. Is it typical for "sar" in singular to be translated as plural based on context?
I think it is an interesting question, because the New Testament authors make these same claims about Yeshua and he is dangerously close to being called an angel by Rabbi Shaul in Galatians 4:14. Shaul also says the voice of the arcangel will raise the dead (1 Thess 4:16) but Yeshua says this about his own personal voice in John 5:25. I wonder if the early historical community could have been thinking such a thing and perhaps intolerant people have ignored this?
Of course the orthodox Christians do not accept this idea, but I wonder if the historical Jewish believers in Jesus/Yeshua may have been thinking it. In the Christian gospels, Yeshua mysteriously claims to have been present with "the only true God" before the world was created, (John 17:3-5), in a passage that reminds of the "sons of God" witness to creation in Job 38:7.
Link: http://scripturetext.com/daniel/10-13.htm
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
29/09/08 04:30:03 |
| |
I don't mean to endorse any particular religious viewpoint here. I will not interpret any reply as being either affirmative or derogatory of any faith tradition. I don't personally belong to any organization, or attend group meetings that makes connects Michael with Yeshua. I have seen that opponents of the claim center on Daniel 10:13 so I thought I might ask about the Hebrew because I didn't see any "-im" or "-ot" plural ending although it seems clearly plural.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
05/10/08 00:02:59 |
| |
Hi Mike,
the word sarim, princes, does occur in Daniel 10:13 to describe Michael. Michael is described to be "achad hasarim harishonim": One of the first/greatest princes. The word rishon means first, but can also mean great. In 12:1 another Hebrew word is used, namely gadol: big/great.
I am not sure about the connection between Michael and Jesus. Hopefully somebody else can give you some input on the matter.
Best wishes from Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
07/10/08 22:25:24 |
| |
Hi, lots of Christian people equate the Angel Michael with Jesus Christ because that is Biblical. For example a big percentage of Seventh-day Adventists if not all of them, would make this link between Michael and Christ.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
22/09/09 03:35:08 |
| |
Find the Hebrew text and the English translation from:
"A Hebrew - English Bible According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition" by the Mechon Mamre.
This will bring up the index to the Bible -
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
This will bring up Isaiah Chapter 6 -
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1006.htm
Link: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
05/11/08 05:12:57 |
| |
While I wish to be respectful of any orthodox Jewish believers, I think it is fair to point out that Brownen Manning regularly transliterates haShem in her blog. Therefore I do have a question about theophoric names (containing Yah or Yahu as a suffix).
Do theophoric names of the Nevi'im such as Yirme-Yahu and Yesha-Yahu imply that there is a middle vowel sound in the middle of the divine name? I've seen many transliterations that end in "oo" sound. This would seem to give it three syllables instead of two.
While of course nobody can be certain, the consensus reconstruction of haShem has only two syllables. Yet some groups actively insist there must be three syllables because of transliterations of theophoric names ending with an "oo" sound. (I've also seen lists without it).
Are these vowels at the end of theophoric names authentic? Were they pronounced (e.g. Yesha-Yahu instead of Yesha-Yah) and therefore was haShem 2 or 3 syllables?
Does anybody even know really?
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
01/09/08 18:35:38 |
| |
Hi Mike,
thank you for your question.
The divine name has brought fascination ever since it was first articulated I am sure. It is impossible for us today to be sure of the exact pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, the personal name of God.
Even so, there have been qualified guesses. Most scholars believe that the tetragramaton is a two syllable name coming from the root “hayah” - to be - Some analyse it as a qal form of the verb. The name would then mean “the one who is” / “the one ever coming into manifestation.” Others take it as a hiphil form of “hayah” meaning “ the one bringing into being” / “life-giver”. Apart from the verbal analysis there are other factors pointing towards a two-syllable pronunciation. Two early Christian theologians, Theodoret and Epiphanius (4th and 5th cent. C.E) transliterated the divine name with two syllables when writing in Greek.
It is problematic though, just as you’ve pointed out, that we have two abbreviated forms of the divine name, -yahu and –yehu (often being used in compound personal names) in which the waw is pronounced as a vowel and not as a consonant as the two-syllable solution would imply (We also have the contracted form –yah.). Maybe the vowel was added to make the pronunciation smoother. Pronouncing a name that ends with a waw is very difficult. The same goes for names which begin with yahu/yehu – as Jehoshua. Instead of the waw (which would make the name impossible to pronounce) a vowel was added to make the pronunciation easier. But these are only guesses from my side.
I’m afraid I don’t have anything else to say on this matter. If someone else has something to add to the discussion, please do so!
Kinds regards from Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
09/09/08 00:37:32 |
| |
meaning for the sentence "Jehovah/Jah naam/neum ayish/ash tom(e) = Janmashtome", a festival of Hebrew origin and celebrated by the people in india settled over 2500 years ago freed from Koresh king of persia under the command of Jehovah, and prophacy of Jeremia and Ezekiel.Want more details.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
30/08/08 12:08:33 |
| |
Hello Anand,
Janmashtomi is a Hindu festival celabrating the brith of the deity Krishna. I'm afraid I have never heard of a Hebrew origin of that festival. If anybody else knows something, please add a respons!
greetings from Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
03/09/08 13:28:56 |
| |
When I took the entry level test I noticed on difference in the phonetical spelling the "x", Israel and most english translate it with an "h". I took an Ulpan in Israel and lived there several years the "h" is used very common. I thought I would give you the heads up on this because it can be confusing.
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
25/08/08 19:36:50 |
| |
Hi Judy,
thanks for your message. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you write: "the phonetical spelling the "x". Does "x" stand for a Hebrew letter? In that case which? Could you please write again and specify a little bit more what you mean?
Thank you!
shalom /sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
28/08/08 19:15:23 |
| |
Hi Kelly,
God has many names in the Bible. One of them is elohim, which means "God" or "gods".
The ending -im is a Hebrew plural ending. When referring to the God of Israel the -im ending stands for what we call a majestic plural - a plural that gives glory and honor to the noun. Elohim is also a term used for gods of other people. When used about them, the plural ending -im is a normal plural telling us that the noun is referring to many gods.
The personal name of the God of Israel is spelled yod, heh, waw, heh in Hebrew (see Ex. 3:14). This name is also called the “tetragrammaton”, a greek name meaning "four letter (word)".
Nobody today knows exactly how to pronounce this name. In Hebrew tradition, the name is pronounced adonai, meaning “my Lord”, to not acidentally break the third commandment:
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
Some Jewish traditions will not even use "Adonai" except when praying, and substitute it with other terms, e.g. HaShem (The Name).
You are also writing about Yeshua, which is the Hebrew name for Jesus. Yeshua comes from the Hebrew root yod, shin, 'ayin, and it translates "salvation", "deliverance".
Good luck with your research on this important subject! regards /Sophia
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
14/07/08 21:53:37 |
| |
Kelly, I am just a student of Hebrew at this website, but I would like to point out that Israel (the collective nation) is the Son of God in the Tanakh (or Old Testament in the Christian tradition). God speaks to Israel both in the role of a Father ("Israel my first born son") and a mother ("as a hen gathers her chicks") in the Bible.
Any descendant of a patriarch who fulfills a role does so on the ancestors behalf, so the children could be impacted by sins of the parents and vice-versa. This shows how important family was to the Israelites and how carefully they chose their mates based on loyalty and character.
Yeshua, like any Jewish person with the faith to claim it, is "Israel" the Son of God. The nation is the people not the geographic polity, therefore "Israel" can be dispersed among the nations, etc.
The question isn't why he claimed to be Israel, but why all Jewish people at the time did not do so also. I believe this is the stinging message of the story in John 10 when Yeshua is accused of blasphemy for saying this.
Of course, in the Apostles teaching of the New Testament, God both personally declares that Yeshua is the Son of God at his immersion with John, and "proves he is the Son of God with power" by raising him from the dead. Yeshua is both Israel and David by inheritance, being descended from that lineage by his mother. (In Christian tradition Yeshua had no personal sin, since God was also literally his Father by action of the Holy Spirit, whereas Miryam his mother was Israeli descended from David).
Add response Send message by mail print message
|
01/09/08 18:51:50 |
|
Hebrew Forums
[explaination]
